Where Is the Greek Word for These Words in English?

[ChristB4us]

Yep

The earth being formless and void means it was not there at all. Only water was there.

Yep, but a day was not measured by one rotation of the earth relevant to the sun (as we now measure a day).

You cannot have an evening and a morning that first day and every day since, even after the creation of the heavens unless it was a 24 hour day by that light that was created the first day.

That is one possibility.

Feel free to apply His words differently if you an account for each one in forming that other "possibility as I can see only one.

Irrelevant. He later said everything He'd made was very good.

It is not irrelevant when He was not done creating the earth on that 2nd day. He could not very well said it was good if He was not finished.

Unsupported assumption. Goodness has nothing to do with what was created when and any implication a good God created something not good must be avoided as inconsistent with God's nature.

He did not say it was good and He did not say it was not good and so you cannot say that is inconsistent with God when He was not done creating the earth until day 3. God did not forget to say it was good on the 2nd day and so the only reason left is because He was not done yet in finishing the creation of the earth until day 3 for Him to say it was good then.

To say it was good the 2nd day and yet continue creating the earth that 3rd day would suggest it was not good as He was still continuing in creating something good which was finished on the 3rd day.

I'm inclined to agree, so that needs to be said to someone who holds that view.

Well for my sharing that one video, thus inferring my support of it without realizing that he had actually deferred from that one statement that I had agreed with, is an erroneous on my part for doing.

And so I stand corrected for sharing that video which I had not watched to the end because God did create the heavens and the earth in 6 days for Him to rest on the 7th day and there was no period of time before day one when day one is the actual beginning of time.

 

[Josheb]

You cannot have an evening and a morning that first day and every day since, even after the creation of the heavens unless it was a 24 hour day by that light that was created the first day.

Hogwash.

The sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day. That means the first three (or four) days were not measured by the earth's orbit relative to the sun. Furthermore, the time between a morning and an evening is not 24 hours. The daytime period between dawn and boqer and ereb does not account for the nighttime hours. In Judaism a day was measured from sundown to sundown, NOT from morning to evening. In addition, because of the earth's tilt relative to the sun the period of morning to evening lengthens and shortens during the year. If creation was created when the earth's tile made the day shortest then the hours between morning and evening were less than 8 hours, and about 14.5 hours when the earth's tilt made that period between morning and evening the longest.

If the text is going to be taken literally then be consistent.

Feel free to apply His words differently if you an account for each one in forming that other "possibility as I can see only one.

No disrespect intended, but you mean you choose to invent only one. The literal reading does not permit a 24-hour day.

It is not irrelevant when He was not done creating the earth on that 2nd day. He could not very well said it was good if He was not finished.

Yes, it is. Your invention implies any part of God's work is not good. That implication is made without ANY evidence to support it.

If I make an engine and choose not to evaluate my work on the second day but do so on the seventh and determine that everything I made is good then every constiuent day's work is necessarily also good. Any flaw in my manufacture of the engine will result in an engine that does not work.

And that is not good.

He did not say it was good and He did not say it was not good...

Argumentum ex silentio

That statement is a logically fallacious argument. God did not say the earth was spinning, either. He did not specify the salination of the oceans, either. What God did NOT say is infinite. What He did say when He was done is that everything He'd made was very good.

and so you cannot say that is inconsistent with God when He was not done creating the earth until day 3.

Yes, I can. An argument from silence is fallacious, the assumption of a 24-hour period is baseless given the lack of a sun and a moon and the day being marked from morning to evening, the lack of evidence on your side of the presentation, and the principle that what is true of the whole is necessarily true of all constituent elements do make it possible for me to YOU, not God, are being inconsistent.

God did not forget to say it was good on the 2nd day and so the only reason left is because He was not done yet in finishing the creation of the earth until day 3 for Him to say it was good then.

Another invention. You've assumed the text is exhaustive when it may not be. You've assumed the silence is meaningful without evidence to prove that assumption. Since the only alternative to good is not-good the implication is what God made was not-good and that is going to contradict God's perfectness, sovereignty, and might. You've also assumed something incomplete cannot be good. There's probably two or three other problems I am neglecting but one is fatal and you've got four!

To say it was good the 2nd day and yet continue creating the earth that 3rd day would suggest it was not good as He was still continuing in creating something good which was finished on the 3rd day.

God made something not good.

This is very simple and easy: post a Bible quote stating anything God made or makes is not good, bad, or evil. Would you please do it in the very next post? Thank you.

Well for my sharing that one video, thus inferring my support of it without realizing that he had actually deferred from that one statement that I had agreed with, is an erroneous on my part for doing.

And so I stand corrected for sharing that video which I had not watched to the end because God did create the heavens and the earth in 6 days for Him to rest on the 7th day and there was no period of time before day one when day one is the actual beginning of time.

Great. Appreciate the candid acknowledgment of error. Well done. There are several other errors in the case being presented.

 

[Mr GLee]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

I would offer.

He that speaks prophesies in a language not know to the prophet speaks to God who interprets it in the language of the hearer . One hears, all hear the interpretation of the Spirit

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Oposite of the tower of Babble. One world government spoke they all were confused and the Lord divided the nations. Acts 2 bringing them back

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God

No interpreter. Keep praying .

 

[ChristB4us]

Hogwash.

The sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day. That means the first three (or four) days were not measured by the earth's orbit relative to the sun. Furthermore, the time between a morning and an evening is not 24 hours. The daytime period between dawn and boqer and ereb does not account for the nighttime hours. In Judaism a day was measured from sundown to sundown, NOT from morning to evening. In addition, because of the earth's tilt relative to the sun the period of morning to evening lengthens and shortens during the year. If creation was created when the earth's tile made the day shortest then the hours between morning and evening were less than 8 hours, and about 14.5 hours when the earth's tilt made that period between morning and evening the longest.

If the text is going to be taken literally then be consistent.

No disrespect intended, but you mean you choose to invent only one. The literal reading does not permit a 24-hour day.

Yes, it is. Your invention implies any part of God's work is not good. That implication is made without ANY evidence to support it.

If I make an engine and choose not to evaluate my work on the second day but do so on the seventh and determine that everything I made is good then every constiuent day's work is necessarily also good. Any flaw in my manufacture of the engine will result in an engine that does not work.

And that is not good.

Argumentum ex silentio

That statement is a logically fallacious argument. God did not say the earth was spinning, either. He did not specify the salination of the oceans, either. What God did NOT say is infinite. What He did say when He was done is that everything He'd made was very good.

Yes, I can. An argument from silence is fallacious, the assumption of a 24-hour period is baseless given the lack of a sun and a moon and the day being marked from morning to evening, the lack of evidence on your side of the presentation, and the principle that what is true of the whole is necessarily true of all constituent elements do make it possible for me to YOU, not God, are being inconsistent.

Another invention. You've assumed the text is exhaustive when it may not be. You've assumed the silence is meaningful without evidence to prove that assumption. Since the only alternative to good is not-good the implication is what God made was not-good and that is going to contradict God's perfectness, sovereignty, and might. You've also assumed something incomplete cannot be good. There's probably two or three other problems I am neglecting but one is fatal and you've got four!

God made something not good.

This is very simple and easy: post a Bible quote stating anything God made or makes is not good, bad, or evil. Would you please do it in the very next post? Thank you.

Great. Appreciate the candid acknowledgment of error. Well done. There are several other errors in the case being presented.

The literal meaning does testify to a 24 hour day as we know it since each day testified as having an evening and morning each day of those 6 days of creation. Nowhere in the creation of the 6 days, does the word of God hints or infer the changing of what that evening and morning was to mean as from day one. So how we see that day on the 7th day and ever since then, has to be the same since day one by that light for the establishing of the very beginning for how there was evening and morning that first day.

 

[Josheb]

The literal meaning does testify to a 24 hour day as we know it since each day testified as having an evening and morning each day of those 6 days of creation.

No, it does not and I have already explained how and why. Repeating the position while ignoring what was posted, and what is explicitly stated in Genesis 1 is argumentum ad nauseam. It gets you nowhere, it gets me nowhere, it gets us nowhere. All it does is show you're willing to employ logical fallacy in defense of your position instead of accepting what is actually stated in the text.

Nowhere in the creation of the 6 days, does the word of God hints or infer the changing of what that evening and morning was to mean as from day one.

Nowhere in the text does the word of God specify what is the measure of time between a morning and a day. You (or the ones who taught you) have assumed a measure not stated in the text and added it to the text.

So how we see that day on the 7th day and ever since then, has to be the same since day one by that light for the establishing of the very beginning for how there was evening and morning that first day.

No, it does not. I might agree with you but I might not. The reasons I might not include all of what I said in Post 42 but also later scripture in which the word "yom" is used to mean different measures of time. A yom can be one single day or an era. We use the word "day" in the same way. Back in my father's day things were very different and on Father's Day we celebrate our fathers' entire time fathering us, ad time which could not be possible were it not for the one day he was born.

Now I have provided you with points to discuss that come right out of the plain reading of the text.

• In Judaism a day is measured from sundown to sundown, NOT from morning to evening.
• In modernity we measure a day by one rotation of the earth relative to the sun, but there was no sun until the fourth day.
• Because of the earth's tilt the period of time between morning and evening (dawn to dusk) that period of time changes. Since the text does not stipulate in what season the earth was tilted relative to the sun, we have no idea how long the period of time between morning and evening took but it was definitely not from sundown to sundown or one rotation of the earth relative to the sun.

Those are the facts of scripture.

There's one more. The yom of the Lord is a diverse yom in scripture. For example, the day of the Lord is a fixed event that may or may not be limited to one 24-hour period. The day of the Lord is usually some event entailing judgment and subsequent wrath. When God came in judgment against Israel using Assyria or Babylon, for example, that period of judgment took decades, not a single 24-hour period. The same can be said of God using Roma to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. Even more awesome is the fact that Jesus is now King of all kings, Lord of all Lords and Savior of all who will believe. His yom has no end. Geneses 1 and 2 are an account of the creation of the heavens and the earth but its emphasis is on earth. There is little detail pertaining to what was created in the heavens in those two chapters. The psalms and the prophets give a little more information (the creation of the heavenly host, the setting of the pillars of the pillars and foundation, etc.). Just as Jesus' day of sovereignty is unending so too is the day of God's rest. God had finished His work in six days and on the seventh He rested. You will note there is no "morning to evening" measure assigned the seventh day . We find nothing stating God went back to work on the eighth day. Instead, He rested, and His rest is eternal. That yom is without end.


I am an early-earther.


Do not take anything I have posted to say otherwise. I am not trying to convince you to be an evolutionist. I am trying to persuade you to handle God's word better. I frustrate the other side just as much as I may (hopefully not) frustrate you.

• There's no sun until day for.
• From morning to evening is not a 24-hour length of time.
• Yom can mean a single day, or it can mean an unspecified amount of time.
• It's always wrong to force extra-scriptural views on God's word.

But the fact still remains all creation (which the secular world calls the "universe") was created, and it was created by God. Furthermore, in comparison to the history of the world reported in the Bible the creation was a comparatively brief period of time .

​

So, would you please either address one of those points or simply agree to disagree? I don't want to repeat already-posted content. If there's nothing new for me to read, then I'll move on.

 

[ChristB4us]

No, it does not and I have already explained how and why. Repeating the position while ignoring what was posted, and what is explicitly stated in Genesis 1 is argumentum ad nauseam. It gets you nowhere, it gets me nowhere, it gets us nowhere. All it does is show you're willing to employ logical fallacy in defense of your position instead of accepting what is actually stated in the text.

Nowhere in the text does the word of God specify what is the measure of time between a morning and a day. You (or the ones who taught you) have assumed a measure not stated in the text and added it to the text.

No, it does not. I might agree with you but I might not. The reasons I might not include all of what I said in Post 42 but also later scripture in which the word "yom" is used to mean different measures of time. A yom can be one single day or an era. We use the word "day" in the same way. Back in my father's day things were very different and on Father's Day we celebrate our fathers' entire time fathering us, ad time which could not be possible were it not for the one day he was born.

Now I have provided you with points to discuss that come right out of the plain reading of the text.

• In Judaism a day is measured from sundown to sundown, NOT from morning to evening.

Actually, the phrasing is there was evening and morning each day from day one and so the day starts as you say at sunset thus evening begins that new day... and the day ends at the following sunset.

Regardless of what yom means, since yom has to be defined by how it is used in the scripture, in the context of the message given in this creation account, it is defined as there was evening and morning each day of creation... a 24 hour day as we know that yom to mean.

Like pneuma in the Greek. It does not always refer to the Person of the Holy Spirit and so it is defined by how it is used in the message given in the scriptures.

 

[Josheb]

Actually, the phrasing is there was evening and morning each day from day one and so the day starts as you say at sunset thus evening begins that new day... and the day ends at the following sunset.

No. You are, once again, adding to the text of scripture. What the verses say is God worked during the daytime, from morning to evening.

Regardless of what yom means....

No, we do not disregard what scripture states. We most definitely do not ignore what it states, add our own inventions to it and then call the consequent position sound doctrine.

Like pneuma in the Greek. It does not always refer to the Person of the Holy Spirit and so it is defined by how it is used in the message given in the scriptures.

And the way yom is used in Genesis 1 is as a period of time existing between morning and evening, from dawn to dusk, from sunrise to sunset, NOT from sundown to sundown.


Do not buy into the teachings of teachers who ignore the specified stipulations of God's word. They have NOT relied on the word as written. They have added their views into their teaching of scripture and called it what scripture teaches when it is an adulterated mix of God's word and human additions.

• There's no sun until day four.
• From morning to evening is when God worked, not sundown to sundown.
• Yom can mean a single day, or it can mean an unspecified amount of time.
• It's always wrong to force extra-scriptural views on God's word.

Those are demonstrably provable facts.

 

[Mr GLee]

Hogwash.

The sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day. That means the first three (or four) days were not measured by the earth's orbit relative to the sun. Furthermore, the time between a morning and an evening is not 24 hours. The daytime period between dawn and boqer and ereb does not account for the nighttime hours. In Judaism a day was measured from sundown to sundown, NOT from morning to evening. In addition, because of the earth's tilt relative to the sun the period of morning to evening lengthens and shortens during the year. If creation was created when the earth's tile made the day shortest then the hours between morning and evening were less than 8 hours, and about 14.5 hours when the earth's tilt made that period between morning and evening the longest.

In the beginning God whose very essence is light and not that he can only create it temporally Introduced himself "let there be light" and his essence exposed darkness .. . .Day three God saw pride in the heart of the spirit of lies Lucifer who was to protect the glory of the Creator .Day four the switch was turn on the two temporal dying time keepers Sun and Moon. . winding down to the last day under the Sun. The bride enters in her eternal home where the light of God's glory will be brighter than the beginning(three days) .There will be no more night to divide the day.

Isaiah 60:18-20King James VersionThe sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Revelation 21:23-25 .And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

 

[ChristB4us]

No. You are, once again, adding to the text of scripture. What the verses say is God worked during the daytime, from morning to evening.

You have that backwards; evening to morning and hence to the sunset of that day before beginning another day.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The verses does not depict God working during the day time but at evening and then throughout the day to the evening for the next day.


By the way, the light that was created that first day and since, was how each day was given that time limit of evening and morning each day.

 

[Josheb]

You have that backwards; evening to morning and hence to the sunset of that day before beginning another day.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The verses does not depict God working during the day time but at evening and then throughout the day to the evening for the next day.

Read it again. God worked during the day and stopped. There was evening and there was morning, the first day. No nighttime. Now either God was working at night (between evening and morning) or He was working during the day (between morning and evening). Either way there is no night. You're once again going beyond what is specified in the text and arguing for a 24-hour day when there is no sun the first for day, and the text specific evening and morning, NOT sundown to sundown (evening to evening) or sunup to sunup (morning to morning).

By the way, the light that was created that first day and since, was how each day was given that time limit of evening and morning each day.

Yes, light was created, but not the sun. A 24-hour day is defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. A day on Jupiter is only 10 hours long! That's all the time it takes for that planet to rotate on its axis relative to the sun. Venus rotates much slower. A day on that planet is 5,832 hours! In fact, we do not actually know the earth rotated at the exact same rate it does millennia after the first day of creation. The earth might have spun slightly slower (25 or 26 hours to a day), or slightly faster (23 or 22 hours to a day).

There's no sun until day for. Therefore, a day during the first four days cannot be measured as one rotation of the earth relative to the sun.

 

[Mr GLee]

There's no sun until day for. Therefore, a day during the first four days cannot be measured as one rotation of the earth relative to the sun.

I would offer.

Day three God saw false pride in the spirit of lucifer. The glory of Christ departed

Previously there was no need for the two corruption time keepers winding down to the last day under the Sun .

God whose very essence is light revealed and hid himself the first three days with three denoting the in end of the matter.

In the new heaven and earth there will be no sun or moon. . and no night . The 24 hour day became eternal . No more. . "Good night Irene".

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

 

[ChristB4us]

Read it again. God worked during the day and stopped. There was evening and there was morning, the first day. No nighttime. Now either God was working at night (between evening and morning) or He was working during the day (between morning and evening). Either way there is no night. You're once again going beyond what is specified in the text and arguing for a 24-hour day when there is no sun the first for day, and the text specific evening and morning, NOT sundown to sundown (evening to evening) or sunup to sunup (morning to morning).

Yes, light was created, but not the sun. A 24-hour day is defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. A day on Jupiter is only 10 hours long! That's all the time it takes for that planet to rotate on its axis relative to the sun. Venus rotates much slower. A day on that planet is 5,832 hours! In fact, we do not actually know the earth rotated at the exact same rate it does millennia after the first day of creation. The earth might have spun slightly slower (25 or 26 hours to a day), or slightly faster (23 or 22 hours to a day).

There's no sun until day for. Therefore, a day during the first four days cannot be measured as one rotation of the earth relative to the sun.

I would say that evening and morning each day before day 4 was the same at day 4 and afterwards that we are having now, a literal 24 hour day.

Otherwise, an adjustment in His words would be required to explain how that evening and morning became different evening and morning that day 4 and beyond, but since there is none, then the evening and morning was a 24 hour day and the rotation of the earth around the sun on that 4th day coincided with how that day was measured as a 24 hour day as there was evening and morning that first day and every day since.

 

[makesends]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

My question for those that may have knowledge is; What is to say that "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 should be rendered "from" instead, in regards to how this was being spoken?

I am having a hard time finding the Greek word for how they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 from.

I understand that not everything is translated well into English, and so if "unto" and "to" is assumed for how this was being done, would not "from" be just as true to how this was not being spoken as well as how this was being spoken? Mayhap true to the message being given?

I would discern that the man in verse 28 is not speaking TO himself as if he is mad, but speaking out of turn for why there is no interpretation. When you have the practice of 2 or 3 speak in tongues one by one and one interpret, a foreign visitor could very well speak out of turn, rising up and speaking for why there is no interpretation coming. And so verse 28 is Paul saying he understands what he is saying as God does too.

And so cut to verse 2, speaking in tongues, when it is manifested, it is from God and not from the man as he does not understand what is being said as it is done in the language of men that he does not understand, albeit in the Spirit, he speaks mysteries to those in the assemblies since there are no mysteries in speaking TO God.

If anyone can explain from the link provided what Greek word(s) they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28, I would appreciate it.

rotflmbo! Big hug, bro.

Google, "bill mounce greek"


Bill Mounce is one of the leading experts on koine Greek and the author of the text books most seminaries use when teaching New Testament Greek to seminarians. Some forums (like CARM) have boards where members well-trained in original languages (Hebrew and Greek) argue over how to conjugate what, where to do it and when, and something can be learned from them. I don't know if CCCF (this forum) has a seminarian who can answer your question. I've got Mounce's books (slowly attempting to learn Greek on my own) gifted to me from a pastor friend so I can tell you it isn't easy but the question of "unto" and "to" isn't really a Greek thing, imo.

The modern (and more literal) translations (like the NAS) don't use "unto." It has more to do with the 400-year-old English employed by the KJV than the koine Greek. Take a look at Matthew 25:40. There are four "unto's" in that verse and only the KJV and the translations holding to the KJV tradition (RSV and ASV in this case) use the word. All other simply say "to." If the Greek is examined, you'll see none of them are separate and distinct words "to," or "unto," but inferred by the conjugation of the objects (nouns) referenced and the syntax of the verse. If you scroll down the page (or click on the "parallel Greek" link), you'll also see none of them have anything to do with variations in the Greek manuscripts (because there are no differences). If you click on the "Interlin" link, you'll find an interlinear Greek/English transliteration. Not much help with this particular verse but sometimes the transliteration is helpful, sometimes more informative than the English translation.

A more curious concern relevant to your inquiry might be the "eph" in this verse. The KJV uses "inasmuch" and the NAS (which is recognized as one of the most literal word-for-word translations of the Hebrew and Greek) uses "to the extent," while some of the other translations are more direct. If you click on the term and visit the concordance, you'll see a sample of how three different translations translate the word in the various verses using the term. In this particular case none of them are consistent with the term! This is useful because a lack of consistency within a translation may indicate liberties were taken in translation. Next, if you go to Strong's, you'll see the plain meaning of the word with variations used in their respective contexts (if you scroll down the page you'll see comparative contexts that are secular/extra-biblical). In this case the "eph" simply means, "on," against," "on the basis of," so neither the KJV nor the NAS did the best job in comparison to some of the others.

That's why it is always useful to use more than one translation, one of which is word-for-word (formal) and the other concept-for-concept (dynamic). However, the truth is we live in an age where all of this information and more are within a few split seconds of mouse clicks away, making allegiance to only one translation pointless, if not foolish. There are to her sites like the one I've used here (Bible Gateway, Blue Letter Bible), but Bible Hub is fast, easy and, as you can see, filled with resources.

Hope this helps and I didn't bore with stuff you already knew .

It's really pretty simple, I think. Strong's shows the words, "men" and "God", in the dative case. THEREFORE they are grammatically necessarily being acted upon, being given something or something done to them or such. In older English the "unto" was more specific in meaning along those lines, but is becoming an archaic word replaced with the more vague, "to". ("To" can be used many more ways than "unto", which gives direction of action, and can't be used as easily in constructions such as "To him, it means...", or, "She is going to do that."

 

[ChristB4us]

It's really pretty simple, I think. Strong's shows the words, "men" and "God", in the dative case. THEREFORE they are grammatically necessarily being acted upon, being given something or something done to them or such. In older English the "unto" was more specific in meaning along those lines, but is becoming an archaic word replaced with the more vague, "to". ("To" can be used many more ways than "unto", which gives direction of action, and can't be used as easily in constructions such as "To him, it means...", or, "She is going to do that."

@DialecticSkeptic

I have tried to see if it was written in English, that it may not have been properly translated from the Greek and so all those little words could have changed the intended message for why I see 1 Corinthians 14:2 & 4 & 28 are lies.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

Try clicking on all the blue words in Greek for 1 Corinthians 14:2 and see what you come up with as it does not align with how they had translated that verse to mean in English by those small words as if speaking unto God but saying it is not man's speak, but God's speak as shown in the analysis of the Peshitta verse for verse 2.

Analysis of Peshitta verse '1Corinthians 14:2'

Analysis of Peshitta verse '1Corinthians 14:28'"

What was provided by both links where they show the column of words from the text they had translated into English from, is not consistent with the three types of translation started above that column at each web page.

I have to question the knowledge for what appears to me "fill in the words" as if they see the assumed message from the English in it which is contrary and not the actual message of what I am reading down the column.

Scripture cannot go against scripture. ! Corinthians 12:7-21 testifies that tongues or any of those gifts are NOT for private use as if they need no other member of the body of Christ for when the gifts are manifested for the body of Christ. There is no exception.

I have shared my concern regarding apostasy in these latter days in the hopes that the Lord will give anyone pause in how they "educated" translators in filling in the blanks by assuming that is the message when I am not reading that message as I go down that column in each cases; for the 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 28.

For 1 Corinthians 14:4 1 Corinthians 14:4 Analysis of Peshitta Verse I have to believe that those that wrest the scriptures had inserted that scripture like they did in Matthew 27:52-53 as it is out of context of the event in Matthew 27:45-54 KJV

I do not see how any mistake can be made for translating that into English for verse 4 and so it has to be an added lie inserted in scripture.

And if others do not see anything contrary when translating from the Greek, then verses 2 & 28 has to be inserted lies as well.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

@DialecticSkeptic

I have tried to see if it was written in English, that it may not have been properly translated from the Greek, and so all those little words could have changed the intended message for why I see 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 4 and 28 are lies. ... {snip the rest}

Sorry, mate, I see that you have tagged me here but I'm not sure what you want me to address. Maybe we could start the conversation anew, just between us?

Let's start with you answering a question: Why did you say that 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, and 28 are "lies"?

1 Corinthians 14:2
"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."

1 Corinthians 14:4
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

1 Corinthians 14:28
"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."
​

 

[ChristB4us]

Sorry, mate, I see that you have tagged me here but I'm not sure what you want me to address. Maybe we could start the conversation anew, just between us?

Let's start with you answering a question: Why did you say that 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, and 28 are "lies"?

​

1 Corinthians 14:2​

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries."​

​

1 Corinthians 14:4​

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."​

​

1 Corinthians 14:28​

"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."​

​

Well, to start off, Jesus did warn that those who do not love Him will not keep His words per John 14:23-24 and the words of His disciples John 15:20

Peter was reporting that there are those who wrest the scriptures of Paul's words and the scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-17

Paul had to correct a false teaching about the resurrection had past already as mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:18 which I believe Matthew 27:52-53 is false as inserted in the event from Matthew 27:45-54 since the centurion would not have seen that in verses 52-53 just as no other 3 gospels reported that more miraculous event which would drown out the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In that same 2nd epistle to Timothy, Paul is exhorting believers to read the scriptures and shun using tongues for private use in 2 Timothy 2:15-16.

So looking back at 1 Corinthians 14:2 & 28, tongues are not for speaking to God since John 16:13 limits the Holy spirit as speaking only what He hears as the words comes from Someone Else and not the Holy Spirit Himself. John 16:13 AND that Paul gave the bottom line on tongues which is for God to speak unto the people in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21.

Then there is 1 Corinthians 14:4 about tongues edifying self and yet in that same chapter, Paul is instructing those that while they speak in tongues, to pray that someone else may interpret it as Paul testified that unless it is interpreted, he will not understand that tongue being manifested by the Holy Spirit in him and so that tongue is unfruitful to himself until it is interpreted.

1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

So why exhort that if tongues can really edify self as stated in 1 Corinthians 14:4?

So I believe those 3 verses of 2, 4, & 28 in 1 Corinthians 14th chapter are not aligning with scriptures for why I believe they were inserted by those that wrest the scriptures.

Not sure if you can bring your knowledge to this when you have to ascertain & discern those verses as being out of alignment with the message of that chapter as well as being reproved by Paul later on in 2 Timothy 2:15-16 and Jesus testifying for how the Holy Spirit speaks in John 16:13.